Another Parliamentary Overreaction?

In a recent post (written during one of my overly serious moments) I questioned whether the American Revolution was inevitable.

Here's yet another example of Parliament’s tone-deaf reaction to colonial concerns.

On March 24, 1765, Parliament passed the Quartering Act (Hat tip to History.org for the reminder!)

For those of you who find the third amendment to the Constitution of the United States somewhat of an oddity, there is a reason for it.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

New York was hardest hit by the act, but it’s not so much their protest that left an indelible print on history, as Parliament’s response to it.

As History.org points out…the New York colonial assembly disliked being commanded to provide quarter for British troops—they preferred to be asked then to give their consent…

Instead of asking, what did Parliament do?

They passed the Restraining Act, forbidding the Royal Governor of New York from signing any legislation until the colony complies with the Quartering Act.

Think that didn’t rile a few feathers?

I still don't know that the Revolution wasn't inevitable, but, at times, Parliament seemed determined to bring it about.